Chrysostom. on Vainglory

An Address on Vainglory and The Right Way for Parents to Bring Up Their Children by Saint John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople iii 2 Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up Their Children Translation by Max L. W. Laistner Published 1951 by Cornell University Press in Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used in the footnotes: CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum. Published by the Vienna Academy. GCS Die griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Published by the Prussian Academy. PG Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. PL Patrologia latine, ed. J. P. Migne. RE Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Wissowa- Kroll-Mittelhaus. Stuttgart, Metzler. 2 iii INTRODUCTION Max L. W. Laistner OHN CHRYSOSTOM’S Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up Their Children has survived in two manuscripts, Parisinus graecus 764, foll. 314v-343v, and Lesbos 42, foll. 92v-118r, but the Lesbos codex has J 1 never been collated. Both manuscripts were copied late in the tenth or early in the eleventh century. The editio princeps, based on the sole testimony of the Parisinus, appeared in Paris in 1656. It was the work of the Dominican scholar, François Combefis, who added a Latin translation. The tract was, however, not included in collected editions of Chrysostom’s works because its authenticity was questioned, and so it was not until 1914 that a new edition of the Greek text was brought out by Franz Schulte.2 He also used only the codex in Paris, but he restored a number of manuscript readings which Combefis had unnecessarily emended. In spite of this long interval between the two editions of the original text, the address did not remain in complete obscurity, partly because the Latin translation by Combefis was reprinted on several occasions, partly because an English version of the second and longer portion was published anonymously in 1659 by the diarist, John Evelyn. Copies of the two printings made in that year are now exceedingly rare collectors’ items; but this translation, together with some other short essays by Evelyn, was reissued in 1825 by William Upcott.3 A German version by S. Haidacher appeared in 1907. He added a valuable introduction and a selection of extracts from various homilies by Chrysostom in which education and kindred topics were discussed.4 One of Haidacher’s greatest services was to prove 1 There is a full description of Lesbos 42 in A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Μαυρογορδατειος βιβλιοθήκη in ό εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Έλληνικος φιλολογικος σύλλογος. Τόµος Ιστ. (1881-82), published in 1885 at Constantinople. 2 Fr. Schulte, S. Joannis Chr. de inani gloria et de educandis liberis. Programm Gaesdonk 627 (Minister i. W., 1914). 3 G. L. Keynes, John Evelyn (Grolier Club, New York, 1937), 58-60; W. Upcott, The Miscellaneous Writings of John Evelyn (London, 1825). 4 S. Haidacher, Des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus Büchlein über Hoffart und Kindererziehung (Freiburg i. B., 1907). iii INTRODUCTION conclusively that the treatise was genuine and that the doubts of the Benedictine editors and others had been unjustified. His book is also valuable because his deep familiarity with Chrysostom’s writings enabled him to quote many parallels from the homilies. The translation itself, though elegant and readable, is sometimes so free that it becomes a mere paraphrase. Evelyn’s version is incomplete because he omitted the opening section on vainglory. This is understandable, as he made the translation under the influence of his own domestic sorrow. It may be admitted that the transition in the address from one part to the other is abrupt; but sudden digressions from his main theme are exceedingly characteristic of Chrysostom’s oratorical manner. His genius as a speaker was such, his ideas and imagery were so copious that, as soon as a new thought struck him, he had to give it instant expression. Such “asides” are natural and unforced, and he returns easily to his main theme. When we remember, therefore, that he regarded vainglory as at the root of the moral and social evils which his system of education was meant to remedy, we can see that the connection in thought is very close, even though the verbal transition is sudden. Evelyn’s version is distinguished by the dignity and literary skill that one would expect from its author; but it is far from accurate. He sometimes slides over difficult passages — one may suspect that in such cases he paid more attention to Combefis’ Latin translation than to the Greek original — sometimes he makes palpable errors. An amusing example of this occurs in paragraph 53. The address is composed in the style of a homily; indeed it is conceivable that it was actually delivered before a group of parents. Chrysostom constantly employs the second person, sometimes in the singular when he directs his counsel at the individual parent, sometimes in the plural as though he were addressing a congregation. It has seemed best to retain the distinction in English, even though the use of the second person singular may produce a slightly archaic flavor. But to have done otherwise would have been to obliterate one of the most vivid features in the address. There are many parallels in thought between this work and other writings by Chrysostom. The more significant have been pointed out in the notes. Some of his citations from the Old Testament do not correspond exactly to the Septuagint text, the reason doubtless being that he was quoting from memory. Amazing though his knowledge of the Bible must have been — it has been calculated that there are not less than eighteen thousand quotations from the Old and New Testaments in his works — it is not surprising that he occasionally lapsed from strict verbal accuracy. There is no reason to assume that he consulted other educational writings; for it is mistaken to postulate his indebtedness to the treatise on the education of boys wrongly ascribed to Plutarch. There are no citations in Chrysostom from the earlier writer, and the fact that they express similar views on certain topics proves iv MAX L. W. LAISTNER nothing. Both deprecate corporal punishment, both point out the need of occasional relaxation from work, both stress that the boy should be trained in courtesy even to slaves, both are advocates of early marriage on moral grounds. But Quintilian, an author with whom Chrysostom, who knew no Latin, was certainly not familiar, held similar opinions. Like Chrysostom, he insists that the father should give careful thought to the education of his boy from the very first, and the warmth with which Quintilian condemns luxury, effeminacy, and the vicious influences in Roman society would have had Chrysostom’s cordial approval.5 Not only could two writers thinking about the same subject independently arrive at similar views, but some of these had certainly become a part of the common stock of ideas among thinking and educated persons long before the fourth century. One would not labor what in truth is obvious, were it not that the vicious misuse of Quellenforschung still persists. Toward the end of the tract Chrysostom adopts Plato’s threefold division of the soul. There can have been few features of the Platonic philosophy more familiar to the educated public than this. The influence of the philosophical schools is apparent also in vocabulary. Chrysostom has a fondness for the verb ρυθµίζειν in the sense of “to train”; it is a usage already found in Plato, Xenophon, and the Stoics. More striking is his reference to the “tension of the soul,” for this appears to be in origin a purely Stoic phrase.6 What is the date of the address? The question has been discussed at length, and some critics have assigned it to Chrysostom’s latest period when he was at Constantinople. Others, however, regard it as an early work. Thus Haidacher argues strongly that the address was composed at Antioch, while Schulte, though accepting Haidacher’s arguments in the main, is inclined to be skeptical and ends by leaving the problem undecided. Baur, without discussing the evidence, assumes that the tract is an early work written about the same time as the homilies against the enemies of monasticism. Max von Bonsdorff agrees with Haidacher that the address dates from the same period as the tenth and eleventh homilies on Ephesians. But he would assign these to A. D. 396-397, thus attributing On Vainglory to the very end of Chrysostom’s Antiochene period.7 It is, however, dangerous to build arguments on particular passages in the work. Those who argue in favor of a Constantinopolitan date rely heavily on the description of the rich man (paragraph 4), whose prodigality in living and entertaining the people with games has reduced him to the condition of a pauper without friends, almost a perfect example of the classical hubris and nemesis. It has been maintained that Chrysostom, when he drew this graphic picture, was alluding to the disgrace and 5 Quintilian, Inst. orat. 1, 2-3. 6 Cf. notes on paragraphs 65 and 54. 7 Max von Bonsdorff, Zur Predigttätigkeit des Johannes Chrysostomus (Helsingfors Dissertation, 1922), 71, note 1. v INTRODUCTION downfall of Arcadius’ minister, Eutropius, in July, 399. The argument is weak, for there is really very little similarity between the two cases. Eutropius’ ruin resulted not from his extravagance but from his corrupt administration, coupled with the bitter enmity to him of Stilicho, Gainas, and the empress Eudoxia.8 Besides, the evils of worldly wealth, vainglory, and the pride that comes before the fall had become a commonplace of Christian preachers, though few, if any, could approach Chrysostom’s vivid eloquence.9 Again, although Schulte would brush this objection aside, the allusion to the bishop (paragraph 83) would be a reference to Chrysostom himself, if the treatise had been composed in Constantinople.

Load more